Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Police Perspective-September 15th, 1888

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Hi Mike

    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I know of one suspect who could very well have committed the murder of at least Annie Chapman, he was identified by witnesses as being seen that morning bloodied and acting very strangely....a few hundred feet from the murder scene. But he was unable to commit any more. He was institutionalized.

    Does he become a less valid suspect for the Chapman murder, and perhaps the Nichols murder, just because other later murders are also unsolved?
    You refer to William Piggott, who was a serious suspect for the Chapman murder, and he does seem to have been cleared of suspicion solely by his being under supervision when the double event occurred. No doubt he was investigated by Police, as friends were found who could vouch for him, but he was near Hanbury Street that morning and admitted to assaulting a woman.

    Comment


    • #17
      Hello again,

      I was actually referring to Jacob Isenschmid Jon. To Ginger, I think you may not grasp the impact that Victoria and her sense of later years morality had upon the general public and society. The dinner tables had to wear skirts to cover the legs for god sakes. Joking, but true stuff.

      The fact that these murders brought womens genitalia into the headline news must have been a large part of the shock they all experienced, because the sight of blood and guts, as you mentioned, was not hard to find around the neighborhood. The more titillating aspects of these murders seem to transfix some students as they did the public, which is why many see at least some of the Whitechapel murders, and therefore that murderer, in a sexual context. Something which I personally dont see in those first 2 murders in the Group of Five at least. I do see a gender specific component there though....that killer wasnt likely to take on a man, healthy or not. And even if he did he wouldnt know what to take. The killer of Nichols and Chapman,.... a singular killer in those 2 cases I believe, was seemingly most preoccupied with things that were particularly female.

      I found it very interesting how the article I quoted distinguished between someone who cuts up animals to someone with medical training and/or knowledge. Im speculating that the way a hunter or butcher would cut up his catch would be designed to purge the unwanted portions and excise the edible portions. Thats not surgery, thats harvesting food.

      When someone with medical training cuts into some flesh he or she can have many different objectives, but none are harvesting food. They are trained how to cut, where they cut based on the objectives, and how the cut sequences are made. I think thats what the surgeon saw on Annie. A detectable surgical limp, if you will.

      Cheers
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        I was actually referring to Jacob Isenschmid Jon.
        Hi Michael

        I think you are getting mixed up.
        Isenschmid was not identified by witnesses as being seen acting strangely near the murder scene that morning.

        Piggott was placed in a line up before Mrs Fiddymont and co, and was id`d by Mrs Chappell.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
          Hi Michael

          I think you are getting mixed up.
          Isenschmid was not identified by witnesses as being seen acting strangely near the murder scene that morning.

          Piggott was placed in a line up before Mrs Fiddymont and co, and was id`d by Mrs Chappell.
          Hi Jon,

          Youre right, I was referring to Jacobs "ID" incorrectly, he actually matched the description given by witnesses,.... from the East London Observer on September 22, ..." It may be only a curious coincidence but the mad pork butcher very closely answers the description of the man who was seen on the morning of the murder near the scene of the crime with bloodstains on his hands. He is about 38 years of age, about 5ft. 7in. in height, of rather stout build, and has hair on his head and face of a ginger colour."

          Best regards
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Mike

            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            Youre right, I was referring to Jacobs "ID" incorrectly, he actually matched the description given by witnesses,.... from the East London Observer on September 22, ..." It may be only a curious coincidence but the mad pork butcher very closely answers the description of the man who was seen on the morning of the murder near the scene of the crime with bloodstains on his hands. He is about 38 years of age, about 5ft. 7in. in height, of rather stout build, and has hair on his head and face of a ginger colour."
            Yes, Abberline even wrote in an internal report that he thought the description of Fiddymont`s man and Isenschmid matched. But then again, he said so of Piggott when he boarded the train to Gravesend to collect him.

            I am always struck by how the above description of Fiddymont`s man matches Mr Blotchy.

            Comment


            • #21
              Helson

              Hello Mike, Jon.

              "Abberline even wrote in an internal report that he thought the description of Fiddymont`s man and Isenschmid matched."

              As also inspector Helson.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment

              Working...
              X